Phanjoubam Chingkhei
Less understanding and complexities concerning the Anglo-Kuki War (1917-1919) as well as heavy reliance on one-sided version of the historical event compounded with the failure to attempt to understand the then customary laws of Manipur Kukis has led to broadening misnomer that the war confirmed as one of the costliest marked by severe intensity was instigated and led by a Manipuri adventurer Chingakham Sanajaoba.
Reality of history cannot be concealed, particularly when documented evidences dealing with the proceedings of the armed engagement between an empire and Manipur Kukis who faced them with inferior and out-dated weapons, are accessible.
Of course, Chingakham Sanajaoba was implicated and imprisoned for his involvement, but charges levelled against him does not include involvement in direct armed battles but rather for his objectives of instigating then straight-forward Kuki chiefs. Later enquiries say a lot that Sanajaoba despite his initial instigation towards Manipur Kukis did not led the war. He however did provided some ammunitions and articles to Manipur Kukis for the armed struggle, one of the charges for which he was imprisoned.
Governor of Assam Sir Robert Reid (1937-42) mentions that Sanajaoba toured the hills with tales of British’s waning powers and “favours to come, if the royal house were overthrown and he himself installed as the ruler of the state.” That was his sole objective and role during the “most serious incident in the history of Manipur” as Reid puts in, causing expenditure amounting to “Rs 28 lakhs of rupees to quell” and during the course of which the British suffered casualties unlike never ever before in Manipur’s history.
Perceptions of Sanajaoba being portrayed as someone who led the war comes from British officials but no effort has been given to understand Manipur Kuki’s point of view concerning why they ultimately decided to go into the war against the mighty foe.
Reflection on actual leaders
Former Major General DK Palit, concerning the armed engagement (1917-1919)observes that due to “the more centralized and autocratic nature of Kuki leadership, they have a greater power of combining effectively against a common enemy.”He also added that they “have stronger tribal affinity” and was “thoroughly suspicious of the British.”
The Kukis “hereditary Chief or Rajah,” as Lt. Stewart in 1855, says “is believed originally had connection with the gods themselves….and looked upon with the greatest respect and almost superstitious veneration and their commands are in ever-case law.”
Lt. Col. Shakespeare, referring his account, states “the Rajah is the sole and supreme authority in the village or villages under him, no else being competent to give orders or inflict punishment through him.” Interestingly, many instances have been noted when Kuki Chiefs were referred to as “Rajah” in multiple British writings ever since British’s foray in the region.
Initially when the demand for the Labour Corps for serving in World War I, began to cause trouble among Manipur Kukis, the high handed approach of the newly appointed political agent JC Higgins, never understanding the complexities of Kukis’s internal culture and customs, resorted to forceful action ultimately igniting the fire that took more than two years to subdue.
Prior to the outbreak of the armed engagement, the political agent during a meeting with Kuki Chiefs was actually paid “a sum of Rs 1500, 3 gongs and one mithun” and was sincerely told that it was “their custom to bring back the head of the dead man wherever he died.” (Prof. Lal Dena).
Rather than trying to understand concerns of the Kuki chiefs, Higgins fixed a stipulated time to yield to his demand antagonising the Kuki chief who considered it as challenge and accordingly Chief Ngulkhup of Mombi sent stern instructions to the surrounding Kuki inhabited areas, to not yield to the demand of the British official. Unfortunately, on October 17, 1919, the spark was ignited when Higgins, in search of Ngulkhup, burnt his village to ground.
Under such circumstances of Manipur Kukis customary laws and power of their chieftainship, it is inconceivable that Sanajaoba except for interaction with some influential chiefs had hardly any role or led the war as projected.
Chengjapao, Enjakhup and Tinthong – The leaders amongst 12 other chiefs
“The Chief of Aishan, Chengjapao who was considered head of all Thadou Kukis and had earlier asked the leading Thadou Chiefs to resist recruiting force, if necessary, which were complied by other influential chiefs.” (Ph Tarapot)
Being the senior most Chief among the Manipur Kukis, the overall leader was charged with “holding a meeting to resist recruiting and to make war upon the government if necessary” in addition to organising “opposition to the recruitment of labour corps.” The highly respected leader who is the Pipa, also “kept communication with other rebels for joint-action against the government.” It was also later learnt that “he was the first Kuki to organise an opposition to labour recruitment.”
Robert Reid acknowledges Enjakhup “as the brains of the movement.” When the influential leader Enjakhup, an ex-sepoy of the Naga Hills Battalion who took active partin the war, was captured, he was questioned by the British officials about his involvement.
Described as a stout fellow, he was asked “is it not true, then” ….”that you drilled the men of the rebellious chiefs and taught them how to shoot?” to which Enjakhup replied “with his tongue in his cheek”(whimsical manner) that “I did” and continued “why wouldn’t I” as “it was the best I could do to help you all” to which the British officer asked “How so?”
Enjakhup simply replied “Why, the more powder and shot they would be wasting on their targets, the less they would have for shooting at your soldiers with.”
Enjakhup, based on the charges levelled against him, can be universally accepted to be the commander of the Kuki militias who had taken active role in several fighting and organised meetings with other Chiefs to take a stand against the high-handedness of the British.
Chief Tinthong of Laiyong was charged for fighting against the government forces during the operations. He even went to the extent of going all the way to Naga Hills along with Enjakhup to see what assistance could be received from the Angamis.
Charges brought against the remaining other prominent and influential Chiefs, who were imprisoned reveals a lot while the charge made against Sanajaoba clearly defined his role has been exaggerated and today promoted by non-Kukis social leaders and writers as the leader of the struggle.
Chief Mangkhoom of Tingkhai, Chief Ngulkhukhai of Chassad, Chief Leothang of Gobok, Chief Heljashon of Mombi, Chief Semchung of Ukha, Chief Pakhang of Chassad, Chief Pachei of Chassad, Chief Khuthinthang of Jampi were all charged of either taking active role in the armed rebellion against the government, organising meeting to resist recruitment in the Labour Corps, instigating other chiefs to join in the armed revolt, taking part in the rebellion and raising men from surrounding villages amongst others.(Dr. SMAW Chisthi)
However, charges levelled against Chingakham Sanajaoba are of totally different aspect. The “Manipuri adventurer” supposed to possess supernatural power, was legally tried for proclaiming himself as the elder brother of the Maharaja with “the intention of assuming the title of Maharaja” and accordingly visited Ukha village but there were no charges of organising, trying to raise men, joining in armed rebellion which undeniably are of utmost importance in when the banner of uprisingwas raised by Manipur Kukis. Sanajaoba was charged of providing material assistance to the Kukis. This clearly indicates that Sanjaoba’s role has been misunderstood and projected in a light which is stark contrast to what actually happened.
Less highlighted hardship aftermath the war
Though the arrest of involved lot is often in the common knowledge of the general public, what is of unreported and not mentioned is the hardship faced by the general Manipur Kukisaftermath the war.
During the course of the military operations, “two agricultural seasons” were suspended, while “126 Kuki villages were burnt to the ground, 16 of them permanently declared barren and 140 villages coerced to surrender.”
Officially, the number of estimated of “Kukis killed was 120 which was much lesser than their own version.” Unfortunately, collateral damages were incurred by other tribesman during the course of the operations which was a period when Christianity’s religious principleshad nothold over those engaged in the war and the militias were often occupied with tribal feuds.
Duration of the war has been downplayed in certain claims it commenced from “January 1918 to Nov 1918, say about 10 months” though official documents related with awarding of British War Medal and Victory Medal to JC Higgins for his role in the “Kuki Punitive Measures” mentions that it commenced from “December 1917 to May 1919.”
Reid reports troops engaged in the operations consisted almost entirely of the “Assam Rifles and Burma Military Force,” with Manipur State Military Police and few “Sappers and Miners,” providing support. In contrast, claims have emerged of all these highly trained regular forces being not involved but that the operations was dealt by “Assam Police and Assam Rifles” only, a clear factual distortion.
Chief Commissioner of Assam, in later proceedings stated Kuki Rising as “the most formidable with which Assam has been faced for at least a generation” and was the “largest series of military operations” in the country’s eastern frontier.
Later, as war reparations or “compensation”, Kukis had to pay an estimated Rs 1.7 lakhs which was recovered during five years in instalments, partly in cash while the rest was extracted through “penal labour” for construction of government offices and “bridle paths” in Manipur hills.
Reflecting on the uprising, JH Hutton noted that Kukis “is an enemy by no means to be despised when the matter is one of jungle-fighting and guerrilla warfare”.
Based on Lt. Stewart, Lt. Col Shakespeare informs they are “great hunters and are passionately fond of sport, looking upon it, next to war, as the noblest exercise for man.” Though, the conventional warfare could not be applied, being natural accustomed in jungle-warfare, Kuki ancestors resorted to what they could do best.
Of terminologies and Conclusion
“Illegal” is term applied to those who committed an act against established law while “foreigners” is based on citizenship context (Indian Citizenship Act 1955). For a tribe, or Manipur Kukis to be precise, who have settled in the state for some 300 years, terming them as foreigners, illegal immigrants is out of question and needs to be put in silence once and for all for overall co-existence, instead of provoking with statements, potentiality affecting sentiments.
The term “immigrant” was used by few polished British officials posted in the regions in 1850’s for they had not encountered them before in Manipur and British’s systematic presence in the state began from 1830’s onwards only. Though Manipur Kukis may have arrived later than other tribes, during the phase of human migration and settlement in Manipur, today almost three centuries after they have established their residence in different parts of Manipur hills, it no longer is of any significance, and they are just as indigenous as Meiteis, Koms, Chiru, Rongmei (Kabui), Mao-Maram and Anal amongst others.
The objective of a modern society is to have access to proper education, better financial prospect, job opportunities and the only way forward for all is to head towards this direction and have a ‘broader vision and common approach towards a rising internal issue.’
On the question that wars are fought between nations, Manipur Kukis and their kindred tribes shares linguistic, customs, genealogical and traditional similarities, characteristics of a nation even though, exactly politically defined boundary may not have been existed.
Aftermath the “war” in the nineties of the 19th century in Manipur, British officially proclaimed the short-lived engagementas an “armed rebellion.” Terminologies are applied accordingly to writer’s convenience and outlook, and should not be matter of unnecessary squabbles unless there is a political agenda, which too are, open to interpretation.
Lastly, unrelated to Manipur, is the political history of the Tai Khamtis, a Northern Shan group from Myanmar, who migrated in phases in the 19th century, and settled in Arunachal Pradesh and part of Assam. Upon their arrival, they seized the Chieftainship of the resourceful Sadiya Tract from the decaying Ahom power and established their power before an insurrection in 1839 against the British led to their collapse. However, never for once have the Buddhist group been labelled with offensive terms as “illegal” “foreigners” and “refugees” because all these terminologies have their proper technical definition, based on the Constitution of India.
The objective, of the article, herein is a humble attempt to dispel the myth, one-sided presentation of the historical event and reckless employment of provocative terms towards brethren Manipur Kukis which unquestionably implies a socio-political agenda, through organised campaign that are misleading and promoting “legacy of hate” creating phobia and mistrust towards Manipur Kukis who have been living in this tiny state of less than 30 lakhs people, in a country of 138 crores.
This is not a reflection of “unity in diversity” which Manipur has always been proud of but rather divisive in nature, and for what for gain?
